AI will likely out-inform and out-perform us mechanically, and may even simulate wisdom and aesthetic judgment — but it won't be "the real thing," because it's just balancing inputs against our desires.
That claim gets refined through the conversation: "merely following prompts" can't be the dividing line, since human cognition is also shaped by inputs. And "draws from a collective pool" can't be it either, since no individual genius creates from nothing. Absolute originality is a delusion; everyone recombines shared material.
What actually distinguishes genius, then, isn't the material but the capture — a person's particular, idiosyncratic way of bending the same shared light. And what makes that capture durable across a body of work is continuity: a decades-long argument with oneself, each piece pushing toward something felt but not yet reached, backed by real stakes — reputation, obsession, the risk of being wrong.
That's what current AI lacks — not originality, since no one has that, but a sustained, self-referential arc and skin in the game. It starts fresh each time. So it can approximate the pool very well, but doesn't yet have a capture of its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic.